KALIMBA JEAN CLAUDE N’ABANDI v KALIMBA JOSEPH N’ABANDI

KALIMBA JEAN CLAUDE N’ABANDI v KALIMBA JOSEPH N’ABANDI

The claim was inadmissible because the applicants failed to first submit the succession dispute to the family council as required by law. The lower courts erred by not verifying compliance with this mandatory procedure. All prior judgments are set aside, and costs are awarded to the respondents and interveners as...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
RCAA00026/2018/CA
Parties
Applicant: Kalimba Jean Claude N’Abandi; Applicant: Mukabakaka Peace; Applicant: Kalimba Edmond; Applicant: Kalimba Noella; Applicant: Ruzindana Diane; Applicant: Ruzindana Lyse; Respondent: Kalimba Joseph N’Abandi; Respondent: Uwantege Gasser Ritha; Intervener: Umurungi Nelly; Intervener: Murebwayire Marie Claire; Intervener: Uwimpuhwe Marie Rosine; Intervener: Ufitese Liliane
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Rwanda
Judgment Date
29 November 2022
Case Number
RCAA00026/2018/CA
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; prior judgments set aside; claim dismissed as inadmissible.
Legal Topics
Succession Procedure, Family Council, Admissibility of Claims, Costs and Attorney Fees
Family Law Succession Law Succession Procedure Family Council Admissibility of Claims Costs and Attorney Fees

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kalimba Jean Claude N’Abandi

Applicant

Mukabakaka Peace

Applicant

Kalimba Edmond

Applicant

Kalimba Noella

Applicant

Ruzindana Diane

Applicant

Ruzindana Lyse

Applicant

Kalimba Joseph N’Abandi

Respondent

Uwantege Gasser Ritha

Respondent

Umurungi Nelly

Intervener

Murebwayire Marie Claire

Intervener

Uwimpuhwe Marie Rosine

Intervener

Ufitese Liliane

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment

  1. 1 Whether a succession claim must first be submitted to the family council before being filed in court
  2. 2 Whether the lower courts had jurisdiction to hear the case
  3. 3 Whether new claims were improperly introduced on appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The claim was inadmissible because the applicants failed to first submit the succession dispute to the family council as required by law. The lower courts erred by not verifying compliance with this mandatory procedure. All prior judgments are set aside, and costs are awarded to the respondents and interveners as specified.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; prior judgments set aside; claim dismissed as inadmissible.

Orders

  • All prior judgments (RC00319/2016/TGI/NYGE and RCA00115/2017/HC/KIG) are set aside.
  • Applicants to jointly pay Uwantege Gasser Ritha RWF 1,000,000 for attorney fees and costs.